活系统综述 (LSR) 的需求和可行性:COVID-19疫苗有效性LSR的经验。

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Accounts of Chemical Research Pub Date : 2024-05-01 DOI:10.1016/j.zefq.2024.01.003
Wiebe Külper-Schiek , Iris Thielemann , Antonia Pilic , Joerg J. Meerpohl , Waldemar Siemens , Sabine Vygen-Bonnet , Judith Koch , Thomas Harder , Vanessa Piechotta
{"title":"活系统综述 (LSR) 的需求和可行性:COVID-19疫苗有效性LSR的经验。","authors":"Wiebe Külper-Schiek ,&nbsp;Iris Thielemann ,&nbsp;Antonia Pilic ,&nbsp;Joerg J. Meerpohl ,&nbsp;Waldemar Siemens ,&nbsp;Sabine Vygen-Bonnet ,&nbsp;Judith Koch ,&nbsp;Thomas Harder ,&nbsp;Vanessa Piechotta","doi":"10.1016/j.zefq.2024.01.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>During 2021 and 2023, a team of researchers at the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) and partnering institutions conducted two living systematic reviews (LSRs) on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in different age groups to inform recommendations of the Standing Committee on Vaccination in Germany (Ständige Impfkommission, STIKO). Based on our experience from the realization of these LSRs, we developed certain criteria to assess the needs and feasibility of conducting LSRs. Combining these with previously established criteria, we developed the following set to inform future planning of LSRs for STIKO: Needs criterion (N)1: Relevance of the research question, N2: Certainty of evidence (CoE) at baseline; N3: Expected need for Population-Intervention-Comparator-Outcome (PICO) adaptations; N4: Expected new evidence over time; N5: Expected impact of new evidence on CoE; Feasibility criterion (F)1: Availability of sufficient human resources; F2: Feasibility of timely dissemination of the results to inform decision-making. For each criterion we suggest rating options which may support the decision to conduct an LSR or other forms of evidence synthesis when following the provided flowchart.</p><p>The suggested criteria were developed on the basis of the experiences from exemplary reviews in a specific research field (i.e., COVID-19 vaccination), and did not follow a formal development or validation process. However, these criteria might also be useful to assess whether questions from other research fields can and should be answered using the LSR approach, or assist in determining whether the use of an LSR is sensible and feasible for specific questions in health policy and practice.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1865921724000072/pdfft?md5=45182810eaa78c5c6abc50da8493c484&pid=1-s2.0-S1865921724000072-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Needs and feasibility of living systematic reviews (LSRs): Experience from LSRs on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness\",\"authors\":\"Wiebe Külper-Schiek ,&nbsp;Iris Thielemann ,&nbsp;Antonia Pilic ,&nbsp;Joerg J. Meerpohl ,&nbsp;Waldemar Siemens ,&nbsp;Sabine Vygen-Bonnet ,&nbsp;Judith Koch ,&nbsp;Thomas Harder ,&nbsp;Vanessa Piechotta\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.zefq.2024.01.003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>During 2021 and 2023, a team of researchers at the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) and partnering institutions conducted two living systematic reviews (LSRs) on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in different age groups to inform recommendations of the Standing Committee on Vaccination in Germany (Ständige Impfkommission, STIKO). Based on our experience from the realization of these LSRs, we developed certain criteria to assess the needs and feasibility of conducting LSRs. Combining these with previously established criteria, we developed the following set to inform future planning of LSRs for STIKO: Needs criterion (N)1: Relevance of the research question, N2: Certainty of evidence (CoE) at baseline; N3: Expected need for Population-Intervention-Comparator-Outcome (PICO) adaptations; N4: Expected new evidence over time; N5: Expected impact of new evidence on CoE; Feasibility criterion (F)1: Availability of sufficient human resources; F2: Feasibility of timely dissemination of the results to inform decision-making. For each criterion we suggest rating options which may support the decision to conduct an LSR or other forms of evidence synthesis when following the provided flowchart.</p><p>The suggested criteria were developed on the basis of the experiences from exemplary reviews in a specific research field (i.e., COVID-19 vaccination), and did not follow a formal development or validation process. However, these criteria might also be useful to assess whether questions from other research fields can and should be answered using the LSR approach, or assist in determining whether the use of an LSR is sensible and feasible for specific questions in health policy and practice.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":1,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1865921724000072/pdfft?md5=45182810eaa78c5c6abc50da8493c484&pid=1-s2.0-S1865921724000072-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1865921724000072\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1865921724000072","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2021 年和 2023 年期间,罗伯特-科赫研究所 (RKI) 和合作机构的研究人员团队就 COVID-19 疫苗在不同年龄组中的有效性开展了两次活系统综述 (LSR),为德国疫苗接种常设委员会 (Ständige Impfkommission, STIKO) 的建议提供参考。根据我们开展 LSR 的经验,我们制定了一些标准来评估开展 LSR 的需求和可行性。将这些标准与之前制定的标准相结合,我们制定了以下一套标准,以指导 STIKO LSR 的未来规划:需求标准 (N)1:需求标准(N)1:研究问题的相关性;N2:基线证据(CoE)的确定性;N3:对人口-干预-比较者-结果(PICO)调整的预期需求;N4:随着时间推移的预期新证据;N5:新证据对 CoE 的预期影响;可行性标准(F)1:是否有足够的人力资源;F2:及时传播结果为决策提供信息的可行性。对于每项标准,我们都提出了评分选项,这些选项可以支持在按照所提供的流程图进行LSR或其他形式的证据综合时做出决定。所建议的标准是根据特定研究领域(如 COVID-19 疫苗接种)的典范综述经验制定的,并未遵循正式的制定或验证流程。不过,这些标准也可用于评估其他研究领域的问题是否可以或应该使用LSR方法进行解答,或帮助确定对于卫生政策和实践中的特定问题使用LSR是否合理可行。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Needs and feasibility of living systematic reviews (LSRs): Experience from LSRs on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness

During 2021 and 2023, a team of researchers at the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) and partnering institutions conducted two living systematic reviews (LSRs) on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in different age groups to inform recommendations of the Standing Committee on Vaccination in Germany (Ständige Impfkommission, STIKO). Based on our experience from the realization of these LSRs, we developed certain criteria to assess the needs and feasibility of conducting LSRs. Combining these with previously established criteria, we developed the following set to inform future planning of LSRs for STIKO: Needs criterion (N)1: Relevance of the research question, N2: Certainty of evidence (CoE) at baseline; N3: Expected need for Population-Intervention-Comparator-Outcome (PICO) adaptations; N4: Expected new evidence over time; N5: Expected impact of new evidence on CoE; Feasibility criterion (F)1: Availability of sufficient human resources; F2: Feasibility of timely dissemination of the results to inform decision-making. For each criterion we suggest rating options which may support the decision to conduct an LSR or other forms of evidence synthesis when following the provided flowchart.

The suggested criteria were developed on the basis of the experiences from exemplary reviews in a specific research field (i.e., COVID-19 vaccination), and did not follow a formal development or validation process. However, these criteria might also be useful to assess whether questions from other research fields can and should be answered using the LSR approach, or assist in determining whether the use of an LSR is sensible and feasible for specific questions in health policy and practice.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
期刊最新文献
Intentions to move abroad among medical students: a cross-sectional study to investigate determinants and opinions. Analysis of Medical Rehabilitation Needs of 2023 Kahramanmaraş Earthquake Victims: Adıyaman Example. Efficacy of whole body vibration on fascicle length and joint angle in children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy. The change process questionnaire (CPQ): A psychometric validation. Psychosexual dysfunction in male patients with cannabis dependence and synthetic cannabinoid dependence.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1